Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-18 22:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #15) > > - Way too many warnings to provide sufficient trust to allow it to be installed > > into /lib > > I don't think the issue is with trusted/untrusted. I guess, I can't avoid to more direct: The amount of warnings qualifies this piece of SW as "not ready for public use". I would be willing to ignore them for an arbirary standard library, but I am not willing to ignore them for a package using DLLs, being involved into booting. > > - IMO, installing DLLs to /lib is a fundamental design flaw. I refuse to approve > > any package doing so. Use ordinary, properly versioned shared libs, instead of > > trying to introduce DLL hell to the Linux bootsystem. > > The use of dlopened libraries for elektra backends may make sense. > There are other examples in fedora (pam, iptable, firefox plugins...). Yes, these packages are also suffering from DLL hell. In particular, packaging firefox/mozilla plugins is a PITA because of this. But there still is a major difference between these packages and elektra: They install their DLLs into /lib/<subdir> rsp. /usr/lib/<subdir>/plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.